The GOSPEL TRUTH THE
ATONEMENT IN CHRIST
By
JOHN MILEY, D.D.
CHAPTER XII:
UNIVERSALITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
I. DETERMINING LAW OF EXTENT.1. Intrinsic Sufficiency for All.2. Divine Destination Determinative.
3. The True Inquiry.
II. PLEASURE OF THE FATHER.
1. Question of his Sovereignty.2. In one Relation to All.
3. A Common State of Evil.
4. Voice of the Divine Perfections.
(i) Justice.(ii) Holiness.
(iii) Wisdom.
(iv) Goodness.
III. PLEASURE OF THE SON.
1. Application of Preceding Facts.2. Atoning Work the Same.
3. A Question of his Love.
IV. SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY.
1. Proof-texts for Limitation.2. Proof-texts for Universality.
3. In Extent of the Evil of Sin.
4. The Great Commission.
(i) The Gospel for All.(ii) Salvation the Privilege of All.
(iii) Saving Faith the Duty of All.
(iv) The Atonement for All.
V. FALLACIES OF LIMITATION.
1. Facts Admitted.2. Inconsistent with the Divine Sincerity.
3. Sufficiency of Atonement in Vindication.
4. True Sense of Sufficiency.
5. Sufficiency only with Destination.
6. Limited in Satisfaction Scheme.
7. Only a Seeming Inconsistency.
8. Mixed State of Elect and Non-elect.
9. Secret and Preceptive Divine Will.
CHAPTER XII: UNIVERSALITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
ARMINIANISM and Calvinism, the two leading evangelical systems, inevitably join issue on the extent of the atonement. The former, by its principles of moral government, its doctrine of sin, and the cardinal facts of its soteriology, is determined to a theory of universality. The latter, by its doctrine of divine decrees, its principles of soteriology, and the nature of the atonement which it maintains, is determined to a theory of limitation. Hence, as previously noted, the question of extent is more than a question of. fact; it concerns the very doctrine of atonement. It specially concerns the doctrine of Satisfaction. If in the divine destination the atonement is alike for all, and actually as well as potentially sufficient for all, then that doctrine cannot be true. Otherwise, all must be saved. Its advocates will not dissent from this.
There is a modified Calvinism which holds a general atonement; but the fact does not affect the correctness of our statement respecting Calvinism proper. And this modified view rather shifts than voids the very serious difficulties of limitation, or replaces them with others equally grave.
The new theory originated early in the seventeenth century with Camero, an eminent Protestant and professor of theology in France. Amyraut, Placæus, and Cappellus were his associates, and active in the development and propagation of his views. Baxter is in their succession. Many Congregationalists and New School Presbyterians have held substantially the same theory.
The doctrine, while maintaining a general atonement, holds in connection with it special election and a sovereign application of grace in the salvation of the elect. Christ died for all. The Gospel, with all its overtures of grace may, therefore, be preached to all in the fullest consistency. But all reject its proffered grace. They do this from a moral inability to its acceptance; yet responsibly, because of a natural ability to the acceptance. Then God interposes, and sovereignly applies the grace of atonement in the salvation of the elect.
In addition to the two distinctions of supralapsarian and infralapsarian election, this doctrine really gives us a third, which might be called infraredemptarian. A universal atonement could have no universal gracious purpose when beforehand God had elected a part to the benefit of its grace, and treated the rest with at least an utterly dooming preterition. Indeed, such a previous election and a universal atonement cannot stand together. An election after redemption may be consistent with this modified Calvinistic soteriology. The theory, however, is really valueless for the relief of the very serious difficulties which beset the doctrine of a limited atonement. But we here dismiss it as not directly in the line of the present question.
This further may be said, without any retraction respecting Calvinism, that there is nothing in its deeper principles to limit the atonement, had it pleased God to destinate it for all. Such a divine sovereignty as the system asserts was surely free to embrace all in the covenant of redemptive grace. But as the atonement of Satisfaction, both by its own nature and by all the principles of soteriology scientifically united with it must issue in the actual salvation of all for whom it is made, and as actual salvation is limited in fact, therefore such an atonement must have been limited in its divine destination. So it is held.
The question of extent in the atonement has its issue and interest mainly between Arminianism and Calvinism. Historically, its polemics is specially between them. Nor shall we turn aside in this discussion to treat its comparatively indifferent relation to other schemes. Both of these systems maintain the reality of an atonement in Christ as the only and necessary ground of forgiveness and salvation. And as the question of its nature lies specially between them, so does that of its extent.
I. DETERMINING LAW OF EXTENT.
1. Intrinsic Sufficiency for All.
If the son of a king should mediate in behalf of rebellious subjects, and so much should be required, in whatever form of personal sacrifice, for each individual forgiveness, then the extent of the forgiveness provided would be determined by the amount of sacrifice endured by the mediating son. The atonement in the mediation of Christ is on a different principle. So it is maintained, and has been, with the exception of the now generally discarded Commercial scheme of an identical or equal penalty by substitute. Now by common consent the atonement is the same in intrinsic worth, and infinitely sufficient for all, whether really for all or for only a part. Hence, if there be a limitation to a part of mankind, it must be the result of a limiting divine destination, and not from any want of an intrinsic sufficiency for all. So far there is now no reason for any polemics between Calvinism and Arminianism.
2. Divine Destination Determinative.
The redemption of men in a mass, and merely as such, or of humanity as a nature, and therefore of all individual partakers of the nature, is inherently erroneous and false to the true doctrine of atonement. The atonement is for sinners as such, and, therefore, must be directly for them as individual sinners. It is only as such that they may be either condemned or forgiven. It is only, therefore, in their distinct personalities that they can be either in need of an atonement or the recipients of its grace. This notion of the redemption of human nature as such, and therefore of all its individuations in personality, has never gained any formal position in Arminian theology; yet it has not been entirely absent from individual opinion and utterance. It has, probably, commended itself to some as strongly favoring the universality of the atonement. If founded in truth it would be conclusive of the question. It is not founded in the truth, nor can it be; and for the reason previously given. Nor is such a position at all necessary to the grand truth of a universal atonement.
The atonement is for individual men by virtue of a divine intention. While, therefore, sufficient for all, it is really for all or for a part only, according to that same divine intention. We are so writing in full knowledge of the fact that such is precisely and explicitly the Calvinistic position. We shun it not on that account. It is the truth in the case, and, therefore, we fully accept it. We shall suffer no detriment, but find an advantage, in the maintenance of a universal atonement. But Calvinistic divines, while holding a limited atonement, are most pronounced upon its intrinsic sufficiency for all. And they warmly repel all accusation of a contrary view, and all idea that a limitation of sufficiency can have any logical sequence to their scheme. No Arminian can be more explicit or emphatic in the declaration of this sufficiency. The question of their consistency is another question, but one that does not properly arise here. But they are consistent and right in maintaining that the extent of the atonement is determined by its divine destination. While intrinsically sufficient for all, it is really for only a part, because God so intended it. Such is their ground.
We might verify these positions by numerous quotations from the highest Calvinistic authorities. Their truth, however, is so familiar to careful students of this subject, and so out of all question, as to be in little need of proof. A few quotations may be given rather in the way of example or illustration.
"The obedience and sufferings of Christ, considered in themselves, are, on account of the infinite dignity of his person, of that value, as to have been sufficient for redeeming, not only all and every man in particular, but many myriads besides, had it so pleased God and Christ that he should have undertaken and satisfied for them."
On the question respecting the extent of the atonement: "It does not respect the value and sufficiency of the death of Christ, whether as to its intrinsic worth it might be sufficient for the redemption of all men. It is confessed by all, that since its value is infinite, it would have been sufficient for the redemption of the entire human family had it appeared good to God to extend it to the whole world. ... The question which we discuss concerns the purpose of the Father in sending the Son, and the intention of the Son in dying."
"That the value of our Lord's satisfaction is, in itself, considered infinite; sufficient, if applied, to save the whole of Adam's fallen race; and that, had it been God's intention to save all mankind, our Saviour's obedience and sufferings would have been amply meritorious, and no addition to the depth of his humiliation, or to the purity of his life, or to the intensity of his agonies, would have been required by divine justice: all this we fully believe."
"The two sides of this question do not imply any difference of opinion with regard to the sufficiency of the death of Christ, or with regard to the number and character of those who shall eventually be saved. . . . But they differ as to the destination of the death of Christ; whether in the purpose of the Father and the will of the Son it respected all mankind, or only those persons to whom the benefit of it is at length to be applied."
"All Calvinists agree in maintaining earnestly that Christ's obedience and sufferings were of infinite intrinsic value in the eye of the law, and that there was no need for him to obey or suffer an iota more nor a moment longer in order to secure, if God so willed, the salvation of every man, woman, and child that ever lived."
It is needless to add to these authorities by further quotation. We add a few by reference.
Whether such a view has scientific consistency is a question which concerns not us, but those who maintain it. Dr. Schaff has real ground for saying, as he artlessly does in the reference just given: "Full logical consistency would require us to measure the value of Christ's atonement by the extent of its actual benefit or availability, and either to expand or to contract it according to the number of the elect." If the atonement is by penal substitution, why did Christ suffer a far deeper punishment than strict justice required as a full equivalent for the penal dues of the elect? We know that the excess of merit is ascribed to the infinite rank of Christ. But, on this doctrine, his penal suffering is a necessary element of atonement: and it is still true that he suffered a deeper punishment than justice required. Was this just? Would God so punish him when a far less measure would be all that justice required? The Rectoral atonement has a place for the utmost vicarious suffering of Christ: but the Satisfaction atonement has no place for any excess of substitutional punishment. There is an excess without any claim or ground in justice, or any end in grace. Punishment, without an adequate ground in justice, is itself an injustice. This is equally true in the case of a substitute in penalty as in that of the actual offender; and equally true of all excess of punishment above the requirement of justice, as of punishment without any ground in justice. And what a waste of atoning worth! All the excess of unapplied grace--enough for all the finally lost and infinitely more--goes for nothing. And those who so cry out against a universal atonement as implying that Christ suffered and died for many in vain, are thoroughly estopped by the inevitable sequences of their own doctrine. Yet Satisfactionists will not surrender this infinite sufficiency. In maintaining a limited atonement they have the profoundest need for it. They could not presume to vindicate the universal overture of atoning grace upon an atonement confessed to be sufficient for only a part.
It is surely clear enough from the quotations and references given, that Calvinism holds the divine destination of the atonement to be determinative of its extent. We fully accept this position. Calvinism is right, not in the limitation of the atonement, but in the determining law of its extent.
3. The True Inquiry.
If the son of a king should interpose in atonement for rebellious subjects, any limitation must be imposed either by the will and purpose of the sovereign atoned, or by the will and purpose of the atoning son. No other has any power in the case. And if we knew the pleasure of each we could determine therefrom the extent of the reconciliation for which provision is made. The atonement is made between the Father and the Son. If limited, either the Father would not accept, or the Son would not make, an atonement for all. There is no other law of limitation. The true inquiry, therefore, respects the will of the Father and the Son, or what was the pleasure of each respecting the extent of the atonement.
In this we are still in full accord with the Calvinistic position. This also is clear from the quotations and references previously given. To these many others might be added. "The pivot on which the controversy--respecting the extent of the atonement--turns is, what was the purpose of the Father in sending his Son to die, and the object which Christ had in view in dying; not what is the value and efficacy of his death." "But the question does truly and only relate to the design of the Father and of the Son in respect to the persons for whose benefit the atonement was made; that is, to whom, in the making of it, they intended it should be applied."
II. PLEASURE OF THE FATHER.
On such a question it is proper to conclude the pleasure of the Father from his own revealed character. There are intimately related facts of decisive testimony; and, also, divine utterances authoritative in the case.
1. Question of his Sovereignty.
No plea of the divine sovereignty can bar the inquiry into the divine pleasure respecting the extent of the atonement. In any case, the question is not so much what God might have done as what he was disposed to do and really has done. We raise no question respecting a true divine sovereignty, but discard a purely arbitrary one as utterly inconsistent with the character of God and the great facts of his providence. Even an absolute arbitrary sovereignty might as well conclude for a general as for a limited atonement. But God does not rule in such a sovereignty. All rewards of men according to moral character are to the contrary. So are the revealed decisions of the final judgment. And so is the atonement itself., An absolute arbitrary sovereignty would need no atonement in order to forgiveness, or in determining the happy destinies of men. Such an administration would be far less inconsistent with the divine character than the unconditional reprobation, or equally dooming preterition, of the great part of mankind. And if there be a few facts or utterances which might be construed in favor of an arbitrary sovereignty, they must yield to the great facts, with the atonement itself, which prove the contrary. It is written, and often applied in this connection: "Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." But can the forced application of such a text conclude this question? And did it seem good in the sight of the heavenly Father to limit an atonement sufficient for all to the benefit of only a part? Good how, or for what? Good as the expression of a sovereignty which his providence and the atonement itself disclaim? Good as a revelation of justice or grace? Good as a salutary lesson of moral government? It could have no such reason, because an arbitrary sovereignty can have no other reason for its acts than its own arbitrariness.
2. In one Relation to All.
God is the Creator and common Father of all men. There is, therefore, no difference of divine relationship which could be a reason for limitation in the atonement.
This point will carry us further. The atonement originated in the divine compassion, and in its provisions and purposes answers to the yearnings of that compassion. One reason of this compassion was in the divine Fatherhood. God so loved us as wretched and perishing, but especially because we were his wretched and perishing children. Hence the very reason of his redeeming love was common in all. It could not, therefore, have been the pleasure of God to destinate the atonement to the favor of only a part, when his love, in which it originated, equally embraced all. And this universal divine love witnesses to a universal atonement.
3. A Common State of Evil.
As all men appeared in the vision of the divine prescience, there was no difference in their state of evil, certainly none which could be a reason for a partial redemption. Their depravity had a common source and was a common ruin. And however they might be foreseen to differ in actual life, Satisfactionists themselves vigorously deny any and every thing in them as the reason of the alleged limitation. Hence there is not any peculiar evil in a part as the reason of a partial redemption.
This point, also, will carry us further. Again, the atonement originated in the divine compassion. God so loved us as to provide a ransom for our souls. This could be no other than a love of compassion, because the objects of it are sinners and enemies. Why this pitying love? Its subjective form in God has an objective reason in us. That reason is, in the miseries of our moral ruin. And could this pitying love impose upon itself an arbitrary limitation when the very reason of it existed alike in all? And could it be the pleasure of the Father to limit the atonement to a part when his compassion, in which it originated, equally embraced all?
4. Voice of the Divine Perfections.
The atonement has a most intimate relation to the divine perfections. Hence they have testimony to give respecting the divine pleasure as to its extent.
(i) Justice.
Divine justice has no unsatisfiable claim. And the redeeming work of Christ, if so intended, is sufficient for its full contentment in behalf of all who accept its grace. So the most rigid partialism will affirm. Forgiveness on the ground of such an atonement tarnishes no glory of justice, nor sacrifices any right or interest of moral government. Hence all reason for limitation in divine justice is excluded.
(ii) Holiness.
The divine holiness has no reason for limitation. If the atonement is intrinsically efficacious in the sanctification of all the objects of its favor, then the broader its extent the greater the interest of holiness secured. Indeed, such higher realization of holiness must have been a great reason for the divine preference of a universal redemption.
(iii) Wisdom.
As the atonement is a sufficient ground of forgiveness, and, in the case of every sinner saved, a higher revelation of the divine perfections than could be realized in his merited penal doom, so the broader the atonement the greater the good attained. There would also be the greater service to the ends of moral government. Hence, on either theory of atonement, the broader its destination the broader is its helpful grace, and the more salutary its moral lessons. Can it, therefore, be consistent with the divine wisdom to prefer the less good when, through the same atonement, the infinitely greater might be procured?
(iv) Goodness.
Beyond these favoring facts, the extent of the atonement is a question of the divine goodness. What is the answer of that goodness? It is really voiced in the sublime words, "God is love!" A God of love must prefer the happiness of all. And as in very truth--as according to all the deeper principles of Calvinism--there was no hinderance in the case, his good pleasure must have been for a universal atonement.
God has spoken to this point so directly, and in such utterances, as to put the fact of his good pleasure for a universal atonement out of all question. Is it true, as he affirms under most solemn self-adjuration, that he has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he turn from his way and live? Is it true that he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son for its redemption? Is it true that he will have all men to be saved? Is it true that he is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish? Can it be, then, that in the absence of all hinderance, and with the presence of an infinitely greater good, he preferred a limited atonement, and sovereignly destinated one intrinsically sufficient for all to the favor of only a part? It cannot be. And the Father placed no narrower limit to the grace of redemption than the uttermost circle of humanity.
III. PLEASURE OF THE SON.
1. Application of Preceding Facts.
All the facts and principles respecting the pleasure of the Father have full application in the case of the Son. They are of one mind, and the same objects of redeeming love are before them. There is equally with the Son an absence of all reason for a preference of limitation in the atonement, and the presence of the same reasons for his pleasure in its universality.
2. Atoning Work the Same.
In an atonement by identical or equal penalty, the greater sacrifice required by the greater extent might have been a reason with the Son for limitation. But the atonement is not such. And no lower step of abasement nor deeper anguish was required to embrace all within the sufficiency of its redemptive grace. The vicarious sufferings of Christ as actually endured are all sufficient for a universal atonement.
We are here in full accord with the highest authorities on the doctrine of Satisfaction. This will appear on a recurrence to citations and references previously given. We may add one here. "All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different, and nothing more, would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood." While this view is utterly inconsistent with the principles of Satisfactionists, it shows equally well their position on the question in hand. And they ever allege this sufficiency as the chief ground on which they attempt a defense of the divine sincerity in a universal overture of redemptive grace.
If, therefore, the sufferings of Christ as actually endured are sufficient for the salvation of all men, there could have been no reason or motive from the amount of suffering necessary to give him preference for a limited atonement.
3. A Question of his Love.
The question then, respecting the pleasure of the Son has its answer from his love. That answer must be decisive. Nor is it in any doubt. The Son of God, who, in pitying love to sinners parted with his glory and humbled himself to the deepest suffering and shame, was not wanting in redeeming love to all men. And it was his good pleasure that his atonement should be for all. His cross so affirms.
IV. SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY.
Under this heading we might discuss at length the Scripture texts usually brought in proof respectively of limitation and universality in the atonement. This, however, is not our purpose; and a brief treatment will answer for our plan.
A full treatment of the present question would also require a thorough discussion of certain assumptions alleged in proof of a limited atonement. We may name the following: A decree of sovereign election to salvation. The elect are given to the Son for the purpose of redemption. His intercession and the gift of the Holy Spirit are limited to them. Christ loved his own people with a special love, and, therefore, redeemed them only. He purchased faith and repentance for them only. The efficacious application of grace, necessary to salvation, is limited to them.
Such assumptions can witness for a limited atonement only on the ground of their own truth. There must be a sovereign decree of election, whereby a part are unconditionally destined to eternal life. Monergism--the invincible saving of --the redeemed by the sole agency of the Holy Spirit, and against all possible resistance--must be true. An unconditional final perseverance must be true. The atonement must, from its own intrinsic nature, save all, or require the saving of all for whom it is made. Otherwise, there is no ground for the alleged parallel of extent between it and the other facts of the system.
But it is not our purpose to discuss these questions. This is not necessary to the argument which we are conducting. And we are entirely satisfied with the result of their previous discussion. Since the time of Arminius and the Synod of Dort, with its celebrated "Five Points," they have held a prominent place in the polemics of theology. If, as we believe, Arminianism has the truth on these questions so vitally concerning the extent of the atonement, it is not limited to a part; and, therefore, not of the nature maintained by Calvinism proper. And so far as these tenets of the system bear on the extent of the atonement, we are content to rest the question on the results of their previous discussion.
1. Proof-texts for Limitation.
The texts of Scripture more directly applied in proof of a limited atonement are not numerous. Nor will they require a critical or elaborate exegesis to show either their affirmative inconclusiveness, or their utter impotence against the many which so explicitly assert its universality. We shall give the texts for limitation by reference and without full citation. And for the sake of a manifest fairness we will give them from a master in Calvinism, with his own italicising, and connecting and explanatory words.
The mission and death of Christ are restricted to a limited number--to his people, his sheep, his friends, his Church, his body; and nowhere extended to all men severally and collectively. Thus Christ 'is called Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sins.' He is called the Saviour of his body; the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep," and 'or his friends.' He is said to die--that he might gather in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.' It is said that Christ hath purchased the Church with his own blood. If Christ died for every one of Adam's posterity, why should the Scriptures so often restrict the object of his death to a few?"
This should be noted first, that in all the texts given there is not one word which limits the atonement to the subjects named. And with infinitely more reason and force may we ask, If the atonement is only for a few, why do the Scriptures so often assert that it is for all? If, as assumed, it is in its own nature necessarily saving, and the actual saving is included in it, then, of course, there is a limitation. But it is not such. Sufficient proof to the contrary has already been given. Nothing respecting the atonement is more certain than the real conditionality of its saving grace. Hence, it is a mere assumption that the atonement is necessarily saving, and, therefore, that the actual saving is the extent of it. And the elimination of this assumption invalidates the sum of the author's argument. Christ did die for the subjects named in these texts; but as they are without a restricting word, they are without proof of a limited atonement.
Stress is laid upon the terms, his people, his sheep, his friends, his Church, his body, as though they designated a distinct and limited class for which Christ died. They are a distinct and limited class, but as actually saved, not simply as redeemed, and especially not before their redemption. There is no such a class except as the fruit of atonement. Hence, there could be no such a restricted class for which Christ died. The atonement, as the only ground of their peculiar relation to Christ, must precede that relation, and be made for them as lost sinners, ungodly, and enemies. They can enter into such a peculiar relation to Christ only through the grace of an atonement previously made for them. That same atonement, previously made for them as sinners, was so made for all men.
If these texts prove a limited atonement, they must be inconsistent with its universality; or, if consistent with this, they do not prove a limited one. There is not the least difficulty in this consistency. It is true, indeed, that Christ died for all the actual sharers in the saving grace of atonement. And there are special reasons for emphasizing the fact. Thus Christ impresses upon their mind the greatness of his love to them, and the greatness of the benefits received through the grace of his redemption, and so enforces his own claim upon their love. But no law of interpretation either requires or implies the assumed restriction in such a use of terms. And the scheme of universality can use them just as freely and consistently as the most rigid partialism.
2. Proof-texts for Universality.
There is one class with the universal terms all and every. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in, due time." Yes, to be testified as a truth, and not to be witnessed against. And the text gives its own testimony. We know not a formula for the better expression of a universal atonement. "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." If God is not in some similarity of sense the Saviour of all men, as he is specially the Saviour of believers, there is here a comparison without any basis in analogy. If many are foreordained to eternal destruction, or merely under the preterition of a limited atonement equally dooming them to perdition, God is not in any sense the Saviour of all men. But with a universal atonement, whereby the salvation of all is possible, as that of believers is actual, there is a clear sense in which he is the Saviour of all men, and a sense consistent with the implied analogy of the text.
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Every man is every man. The identity of the two terms of a proposition does not exclude their equivalence. Rather, we have the simple truth that a fact is what it is. And no skill in exegesis can reduce this text to the measure of a limited atonement.
There is another class which affirms the redemption of the world, and in the truest sense of a universal atonement.
The weakness of all attempts to reduce these texts to the sense of a limited atonement really concedes their irreducible universality. The attempt requires an identification of the world with the elect. They must have one sense, in that both must mean the same persons. These texts would thus be classed in sense with the proof-texts of limitation, previously considered. World would be one in meaning with the people, sheep, friends, Church, body of Christ. Will it bear such a sense? The exegete has not yet arisen who can answer affirmatively, and make good his answer.
3. In Extent of the Evil of Sin.
More than once is the co-extension of sin and atonement set forth.
"Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." The "all men" in relation to Adam are all in the fullest sense. No real Calvinist will question it. But the "all men" in relation to the redemption in Christ, must be all in the same sense of universality. Indeed, the "all men" in the two relations to Adam and Christ are the very same; and only a forced interpretation could give less extension to the term in the latter case than in the former. The text clearly gives us a universal atonement.
"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." In the full sense of Scripture, Christ died for men as in a state of sin and death, and only for such. But he died for all; therefore all were dead. Thus, in a somewhat syllogistic statement the text gives the universality of the atoning death of Christ as the major premise. It is thus placed as a truth above question.
For "all dead," some give the rendering "all died"--in and with Christ. Thereon an attempt is made to limit the atonement to the elect. We will not contend about the new rendering, but must dispute the limiting sense. Candlish here finds the Headship of Christ and the doctrine of imputation of sin to him, and of all that he does and suffers to those whom he represents, in a sense "that whatever befalls the Head must be held to pass, and must actually pass, efficaciously, to all whom he represents." This is the necessary salvation of all for whom Christ died. Hence, he must have died for only a part, or the apostle's argument is implicated in Universalism. "Not only is the argument thus hopelessly perplexed, but, as in the former case, it is found to tell in favor of the notion of universal salvation rather than any thing else; making actual salvation, through the death and life of Christ, co-extensive with death through the sin of Adam." We would not deplore such a realization. Nor would Dr. Candlish. His trouble--is with the logic of the case. Actual salvation is limited in fact; therefore, an atonement necessarily saving must be limited. He is logically right. But his trouble comes from his erroneous doctrine of Satisfaction. With an atonement in vicarious suffering sufficient for all, but really conditional in the saving result, its universality is in full logical accord with a limited actual salvation. There is, therefore, no exigency of interpretation from a necessary harmony of fact and doctrine, requiring either the exclusion of the manifest comparison of sin and atonement in co-extension, or the reduction of a universal term to the meaning of a part. And the text above cited, despite all the efforts of a limiting scheme, is clear proof of a universal atonement.
4. The Great Commission.
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." This great commission laid its solemn charge upon the apostles with all the obligation and authority which the Master, now risen and with all power in his hand, could impose. So it comes down the ages upon all Churches and ministers. And so all true Churches and ministers receive it. We thus have certain indisputable facts intimately related to the extent of the atonement, and decisive of its universality.
(i) The Gospel for All.
The very terms of the great commission are decisive of this, that the Gospel is for all. And its universal preaching should be, and in the very nature of it must be, the free offer of saving grace in Christ to all. The most rigid Limitationists fully admit this. Indeed, they have no alternative. Nor need we insist upon what no one questions.
(ii) Salvation the Privilege of All.
The Gospel is the overture of salvation. All to whom it is preached may accept it and be saved. To this end is it preached. And the same privilege would ever accompany the Gospel, were it fully preached in all the world. Nor need we here contend for what is fully conceded.
(iii) Saving Faith the Duty of All.
It is the duty of all to whom the Gospel comes to accept it in faith, and a faith unto salvation. The same would be true, were it in the fullest sense preached to all. This obligation is in the very terms of the great commission. Hence, eternal destinies are determined according as the Gospel is received or rejected. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Only on an obligation to a true, saving faith in Christ could our action in the case have such consequence. Other texts equally express or imply the same duty of a saving faith. We shall have everlasting life or perish, according as we believe or believe not; are in condemnation or free from it, according to the same action; are heirs of life eternal or under the abiding wrath of God, as we believe on the Son or do not believe.
Limitationists concede and maintain this duty of faith. Hence, we need not further support what is not disputed. Indeed, special account is made of this obligation for the vindication of divine justice in the final doom of unbelievers.
The duty of a saving faith in Christ implies an actual grace of salvation in him. The required faith must terminate in his redeeming death. An attainable grace of salvation absolutely conditions the obligation of such a faith. But, on a limited atonement, the Gospel comes to many for whom there really is no such grace. Nor will the assertion of an intrinsic sufficiency for all void this consequence. Then can this faith be the duty of any one for whom there is no saving grace? How can it be? It has no objective truth, and would be a trust in what does not exist. Nor could the salvation possibly accrue upon the faith. And has Christ enjoined the offer of an impossible blessing? Has he commanded faith in what is not real? Has he made the unbelief of what is not true a sin of exceeding demerit and damnableness? No, he has not done any of these things. We can most positively so deny; but only on the ground of a real atonement for all.
On a limited atonement, the duty of this faith must be most difficult--too difficult, indeed, to be so responsible. The faith implies, not only an intrinsically sufficient, but an actually sufficient, atonement for any one exercising it. Faith in this fact of an actual atonement must precede, as its necessary condition, the faith of a saving trust in Christ. This is denied. Both authors given in the reference properly distinguish the mental acts of one in believing that Christ died for him, and in believing in him for his salvation; but, strange enough, both deny a necessary precedence to the former act of faith, and, indeed, give precedence to the latter. We know not the mental philosophy by which they place these facts in this order. It must originate in the exigency of their soteriology rather than in the careful study and scientific use of the facts of psychology. But no man ever did or can believe in Christ unto salvation without first believing that he died for him. This is the necessary order of the mental facts. And it is utterly nugatory to plead that no one is commanded first to believe that Christ died for him. This is not claimed. And the necessity arises, not from the immediate command of such a preceding faith, but from inevitable laws of the mind, under the obligation of a divinely enjoined saving faith in Christ. Such is the necessary order of kindred facts as given by St. Paul: "For he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Here faith in God, as existing and good, must precede all successful coming to him in an earnest seeking and a true faith of trust for his blessing. There is the same necessary order of facts respecting our faith in Christ: first, in believing that he died for us; then, in a sure trust of faith in him for his salvation.
It is here that, on a limited atonement, the exceeding difficulty of the divinely-required faith arises. If Christ died for only a part, and, as many hold, for only the far smaller part of adults, no man has, nor can have, previous to his conversion, satisfactory evidence that there is an atonement for him. And, according to the doctrine of chance as applicable in the case, the presumption is strongly against it. How, then, can he savingly trust in Christ? It is nothing to the point to answer, that he does not know that he is left without redemption; for what he needs to be assured of, as the necessary condition of a saving faith in Christ, is, that he did provide for him.
(iv) The Atonement for All.
We group the facts given us under the great commission. The Gospel is for all, and in the free overture of saving grace in Christ. Salvation is the privilege of all to whom the gracious overture is made. A saving faith in the redemption of Christ is the duty of all who have the Gospel. These are not mere inferences, but facts clearly given in the Scriptures, and fully conceded by the advocates of a limited atonement. By all the force of their logic they witness to the fact of a real atonement for all. They have no other ground. The overture of saving grace has no other; nor the privilege of salvation; nor the duty of a saving faith in Christ; nor the guilt and damnableness of unbelief. Therefore, these facts imperatively require a universal atonement, and, so requiring, affirm its truth.
V. FALLACIES OF LIMITATION.
The law of scientific accordance in vitally related truths and facts makes very serious trouble for the scheme of limited atonement. Certain very discordant but admitted facts require reconciliation with the limitation, or rather, with the divine sincerity, as concerned in them. We shall show that the attempted reconciliation proceeds with fallacies, and, therefore, ends in fallacy.
1. Facts Admitted.
These facts were given with the great commission in the previous section, and need only to be recalled. The Gospel is for all. Salvation is the privilege of all under the Gospel. A saving faith in Christ is the duty of all who hear the Gospel. Such are the facts. They have the authority of Scripture. Limitationists fully admit them, as manifest in references previously given. Such references might be increased to a great number. No modern Calvinistic author of any influence will question them. The common attempt to reconcile them with the divine sincerity is in their full admission.
2. Inconsistent with the Divine Sincerity.
There is here no issue either on the admitted facts or on the divine sincerity: the question respects the consistency of the facts with that sincerity, on the ground of a limited atonement. We assert their inconsistency, and accuse their attempted reconciliation of egregious fallacy. On a limited atonement, the Gospel cannot be sincerely preached to all. Nor can salvation be the privilege of all. Nor can a saving faith in Christ be the duty of all, nor of any for whom his death was not divinely destinated as an atonement. Such a divine overture of grace and requirement of faith would be to the unredeemed a mockery and a cruelty. These facts go into the present issue. There are no other facts or vindicatory pleas which can void the force of their logic. They do not implicate the divine sincerity, but conclude the universality of the atonement as the only ground of their consistency with that sincerity.
3. Sufficiency of Atonement in Vindication.
The ground on which Limitationists specially attempt a vindication of the divine sincerity in a universal overture of saving grace, with the other admitted facts, is an alleged sufficiency of the atonement for all. The fact is so familiar that there is but slight reason for any reference. We have previously shown how fully the advocates of a limited atonement maintain its intrinsic sufficiency, in just what Christ did and suffered, for the salvation of all men. Thus they have their position of defense in the present issue. Whether, on their doctrine of atonement, there is a real and available sufficiency, such as will answer for the required vindication, we shall directly consider. For the present it may suffice to note the ground on which the vindication is attempted.
4. True Sense of Sufficiency.
We must distinguish between a mere intrinsic and an actual sufficiency. There is reason for the distinction. Satisfactionists fully recognize it, especially in application to the redemptive work of Christ. An intrinsic sufficiency is from what a thing is in its own capability. An actual sufficiency is from its appropriation. A life-boat may have ample capacity for the rescue of twenty shipwrecked mariners; but if appropriated, and limited by the appropriation, to the rescue of only ten, the actual and available sufficiency is only so much. One man has money enough for the liberation of twenty prisoners for debt; but whether it shall be available, and so actually sufficient, depends upon his use or appropriation of it. Even if he should appropriate the whole sum, but at the same time destinate it to the benefit of a fixed number--ten of the twenty--then, while intrinsically sufficient for the liberation of all, it would be actually sufficient and available for only the designated ten. The atonement of Satisfaction must yield to such a consequence. The redemptive mediation of Christ, in just what he did and suffered, has intrinsic sufficiency for the salvation of all men, but there is a limiting divine destination. Such are the facts as given by Satisfactionists themselves. The sufficiency for all is only potential, not actual from a universal destination. But for the divine vindication in a universal overture of saving grace in Christ, and in holding all to so responsible a duty of faith in him, a mere intrinsic sufficiency will not answer. Only an actual and available sufficiency will so answer.
5. Sufficiency only with Destination.
The sufferings of Christ have no atoning value except as they were vicariously endured for sinners with the purpose of an atonement. His incarnation and death are conceivable and possible entirely apart from the purposes of redemption. In that case they would have no atoning element. All atonement is absolutely conditioned by his so suffering for sinners.
The extent of the atonement is thus determined by its divine destination. This agrees with the above principle. And, as we have seen, it is a primary principle in the doctrine of Satisfaction. Hence, as atonement is necessarily conditioned on the divine appointment and acceptance of the sufferings of Christ as a substitute in behalf of sinners, so the divine destination absolutely fixes the limit of its extent. There is no atonement beyond. As the sufferings of Christ are an atonement for sin only with their divine destination to that end, so they have no atoning value for any one beyond those for whom they were redemptively destined. And the plea of a sufficient atonement for all, while its limited destination is firmly maintained, is the sheerest fallacy. It is as utterly insufficient for all for whom it was not divinely destinated as though no atonement had been made for any. Hence the alleged ground on which it is attempted to vindicate the divine sincerity in the universal overture of saving grace, and the imperative requirement of saving faith in Christ, is no ground at all.
6. Limited in Satisfaction Scheme.
If we test the assumption of a universal sufficiency in the atonement by the principles of the Satisfaction theory, we shall further see how utterly groundless the pretension is. This is an entirely fair method. For unless there be a sufficiency according to these principles, it is the sheerest assumption, and the vindicatory use of it utterly groundless. And this we maintain, that the Satisfaction atonement is, from its own principles, of limited sufficiency.
In this theory atonement is by substitutional punishment in satisfaction of justice. Sin must be punished according to its desert. Any omission would be an injustice in God. So the theory maintains, as we have previously shown. There is no salvation for any sinner except through a substitute in penalty. There is no atonement for any one except in penal substitution. But by divine covenant and destination Christ suffered the punishment of sin for only an elect part, not for all. So the theory asserts. Such an atonement is as utterly insufficient for any and all for whose sins penal satisfaction is not rendered to justice, as though no atonement were made, or there were no Christ to make one.
From its own principles the atonement of Satisfaction is necessarily efficient just as broadly as it is sufficient. The necessary elements of its sufficiency must give it efficiency in the actual salvation of all for whom it is made. If Christ, as accepted substitute, took the place of an elect part under both precept and penalty, and rendered full satisfaction in respect of both, of course they must all be saved. Their repentance and faith are the purchase of redemptive grace, and must take their place as necessary facts in a process of salvation monergistically wrought.
While such is the logic of the principles of Satisfaction, its advocates fully support the same view. The fact is given in previous citations and references. Many such might be added, though a few will suffice. "His atonement may be truly called 'a finished work,' securing not only possible salvation, but an actual salvation." "If the fruits of the death of Christ be to be communicated unto us upon a condition, and that condition to be among those fruits, and be itself to be absolutely communicated upon no condition, then all the fruits of the death of Christ are as absolutely procured for them for whom he died as if no condition had been prescribed; for these things come all to one. . . . Faith, which is this condition, is itself procured by the death of Christ for them for whom he died, to be freely bestowed on them, without the prescription of any such condition as on whose fulfilling the collation of it should depend." "But God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to save a multitude which no man could number, gave them to his Son as his inheritance, provided he would assume their nature and fulfill all righteousness in their stead. In the accomplishment of this plan Christ did come into the world, and did obey and suffer in the place of those thus given to him, and for their salvation. This was the definite object of his mission, and, therefore, his death had a reference to them which it could not possibly have to those whom God determined to leave to the just recompense of their sins." Respecting the atonement for the elect: "Is it any thing short of a real and personal substitution of Christ in their room and stead, as their representative and surety, fulfilling all their legal obligations, and undertaking and meeting all their legal liabilities? Is it any thing short of such a substitution as must insure that, in consequence of it, they are now, by a legal right--in terms of the law which He as their covenant head has magnified and made honorable in their behalf --free from the imputation of legal blame; that as one with him in his righteousness they are judicially absolved and acquitted, justified from all their transgressions, and invested with a valid legal title to eternal life and salvation?"
Such is the atonement of Satisfaction. From its own nature it must save all for whom it is made. It has ever waged war upon Arminianism for the denial of this causal efficiency as being a denial of the true nature of atonement. It is such that, were it for all, then all must be saved. Hence it is denied that it is for all. A limited actual salvation is ever given as the proof of a limited atonement. It is the only possible atonement. The facts of substitution in Christ necessary to an atonement must be efficient in the salvation of all whom he substitutes.
Is such an atonement sufficient for all? It is made, as maintained, on a covenant between the Father and the Son. By their consenting pleasure it is for a given number of elect souls, and no more. We accept the divine destination as the determining law of its extent. We give full credit to its advocates for asserting its intrinsic sufficiency for all. But an intrinsic or potential sufficiency is one thing, while an actual and available sufficiency is another. Recurring to the citations of Limitationists in the assertion of this sufficiency for all, we often find a qualified expression after this manner: The mediation of Christ, in just what he did and suffered, is sufficient for the salvation of all men, had it pleased the Father and the Son to destinate it for all. But this destination is denied. It is the determining fact of a limited atonement. Hence, on this doctrine, there are many whose place Christ did not take either in precept or penalty. The fact concludes the question of sufficiency against the Limitationists. They must not ignore their own absolutely limiting doctrine, nor must they, in the exigency of defense, be allowed to call a contingent sufficiency--a sufficiency that might have been, but is not--a real sufficiency. They must abide by their own principles.
How can there be a sufficient atonement for the non-elect, when according to the principles and averments of this theory there is for them no atonement? Will Limitationists answer? Did Christ die for them? Did be fulfill for them the righteousness which the divine law imperatively requires, and without which there is no salvation? Did he suffer the merited punishment of their sins, also held to be absolutely necessary to their discharge? A limited atonement has only a negative answer. Where, then, is the sufficiency for them? The doctrine must deny its most fundamental principles even to pretend to a sufficiency. The atonement is now, but the work of Christ in making it is in preterit time. Its extent was then absolutely determined. It is for those for whom it was made, and never can be for others. The principles of the doctrine so determine it. An immutable divine decree so bounds it. And only with egregious fallacy can there be even a pretense of sufficiency in the atonement for the non-elect.
Then, on the doctrine of a limited atonement, it is impossible to reconcile the free and universal overture of saving grace in Christ, and the imperative duty of all who hear the Gospel savingly to believe in him, with the divine sincerity. There is for many no sufficient atonement or saving grace. The offered grace is not in the offer. The utmost faith is utterly groundless and delusive. Could one non-elect soul, held to the duty of a saving trust in Christ under the penalty of endless perdition, have a faith equal in strength to the combined faith of millions saved, it would be fruitless of forgiveness and salvation to him, as a soul without the substitution of Christ cannot be forgiven and saved. So the doctrine of Satisfaction affirms.
What is the conclusion? The real and unquestioned facts are still before us. On the one hand are the universal overture of saving grace and the responsible duty of saving faith; on the other, the divine sincerity therein. There is no issue between them. There is no question of any such issue. The question is, whether the former are consistent with the latter on the ground of a limited atonement? Certainly they are not. Nor can the divine sincerity be thereon vindicated. We give this discussion of the question in proof. The attempted reconciliation proceeds with fallacies and ends in fallacy. The inevitable conclusion is the universality of the atonement.
7. Only a Seeming Inconsistency.
With seeming doubt as to the satisfactoriness of the preceding defense, it is assumed that, after all, the admitted facts may not be inconsistent with the divine sincerity; that our inability to reconcile them is not conclusive of an absolute contrariety; that to higher intelligences, and especially to God, they may appear in full harmony. "That we are incapable of reconciling them does not prove them to be irreconcilable. God may be capable of reconciling them; creatures of a higher intellectual and moral rank may see their reconcilableness; or we ourselves, when elevated to, a brighter sphere of being, may yet be fully equal to the difficult problem." But so conjectural a solution will not answer for so real a difficulty. And there are contrarieties absolutely irreconcilable. Such is the case here. Our highest reason must so pronounce. We cannot rationally go behind it, not even hypothetically. We may accept in faith what is above our reason, but we cannot solve, nor even relieve, a difficulty by an assumption contradictory to our reason. This is the insuperable difficulty here. God cannot sincerely offer saving grace to any soul when the grace is not in the offer. Nor can he righteously impose the duty of a saving faith in Christ upon any one for whom there is no salvation in him.
8. Mixed State of Elect and Non-elect.
Another vindication is attempted on the assumption of a necessity arising out of the mixed state of elect and non-elect. The only alternative to an indiscriminate offer of grace and requirement of faith would be an open discrimination of the two classes. "The warrant of faith is the testimony of God in the Gospel. And, it may be asked, could not this testimony have been made only to those to whom it was his design to give grace to receive it? We answer: Not without doing away with that mixed state of human existence which God has appointed for important purposes; not without making a premature disclosure of who are the objects of his special favor and who are not, to the entire subversion of that moral economy under which it is the good pleasure of his will that men should subsist in this world; not without even subverting the very design of salvation by faith."
The reasons alleged for secrecy in the elective and reprobative purposes of God are without force; certainly without sufficient force for his vindication in a graceless offer of saving grace in Christ. The mixed state of elect and reprobate would continue as it is. The moral economy under which we live would remain. It is God's own, and of his appointment. And has he so ordered it as to require of him a free overture of saving grace to many for whom there is none? Nor would the plan of salvation by faith be subverted. Many, without any question of an atonement for them, refuse all saving faith in Christ; while many, equally without doubt of an atonement for them, do savingly believe in him. With this discrimination there would still be a proper sphere of saving faith for the elect; and, on the doctrine of Satisfaction, the faith would be under the same determining law as now.
This disclosure would accord with the facts in the case, and be far better than a false show of grace. It must be made sometime, and is just the same if made now. Nor would the destiny of any soul be affected thereby. Destiny is determined by the decree of God, not by the disclosure of its elective discriminations. Believers and unbelievers would be the very same--neither more nor less, nor other in either class, as the immutable decree of election and preterition is immutable. There is no urgent reason for this indiscriminate overture of partial grace; while no urgency could justify it. Let the atonement be preached, with the announcement of its partialism, and that the non-elect have no interest in it and no duty respecting it, and the result, as determined by an absolute sovereignty working monergistically, will be the very same. And a limited atonement still contradicts facts divinely given. It must, therefore, be an error.
9. Secret and Preceptive Divine Will.
As a last resort, the reconciliation of this overture of grace and requirement of faith with the divine sincerity, is attempted on a distinction between the secret or decretive and the preceptive will of God. "The purposes of God are not the rule of our duty, and whatever God may design to do, we are to act in accordance with his preceptive will." "The Gospel call may be regarded as expressive of man's duty rather than of the divine intention." Is this reasoning? The characters of Dr. Hodge and Dr. Symington will not allow us to question its sincerity. But can the precepts and purposes of God run counter to each other? Can he openly offer a grace, and with the forms of gracious invitation and promise, which he secretly intends not to give, and by an eternal purpose withholds? Can he openly command the duty of a saving faith upon any one for whom there is no saving grace, and whom his eternal decree absolutely dooms to the perdition of sin? How could these things be without duplicity? And it is a marvelous supposition that the Gospel, as the invitation and command of God, may represent our privilege and duty, conveying the one and imposing the other, but not his secret will and decree respecting us. Yet it is only on such a supposition that this attempted vindication can have any pertinence whatever. Indeed, the attempt proceeds upon the assumption of this contrariety. A doctrine with such exigency of defense cannot be true.
The atonement, as a provision of infinite love for a common race in a common ruin of sin, with its unrestricted overture of grace and requirement of saving faith in Christ, is, and must be, an atonement for all.
Return to Atonement by Miley Table of Contents